All lost, all possible. The year 1918 from the perspective of contemporaries

The Hidden Defeat

In 1918, the people of Germany face an uncertain future. The most important source of information is newspapers, which have been read intensively, especially since the beginning of the war. Until the last year of the war, the German population assumes that the Central Powers, an alliance of the German Empire, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire, will defeat the Allies. The newspapers almost exclusively report victories. In the public perception, success is therefore considered certain, even though the military strength and the number of opponents are formidable: France, Great Britain, the Russian Tsardom, the USA, Canada, Australia and many other states worldwide.

At the end of September 1918, the Germans are suddenly surprised by news: the Oberste Heeresleitung (OHL), the head of the German Army, has made an offer of armistice to the US President. In October, the Kiel sailors refuse to sail for another battle against the British fleet. They form councils and thus establish democratic bodies – and that as soldiers! The workers in the factories also elect representatives from their own ranks. But this is not enough. Thousands of soldiers leave their barracks, many workers leave their factories. Crowds of infantrymen and sailors march through the Reich capital Berlin, joined by workers. Karl Liebknecht (1871-1919), former SPD Reichstag deputy, opponent of the war and founder of the Spartacus League, puts himself at their head. On 9 November 1918, he proclaimed a republic, thus ending the monarchy. The US journalist Ben Hecht is hot on his heels and reports what he sees: Liebknecht lies down in the bed of the emperor in the Berlin City Palace, demonstrating that the people have driven out the Hohenzollerns. Whether Philipp Scheidemann (1865-1939) also proclaimed the republic on the same day is still disputed today. If he did, hardly anyone noticed. The newspapers report extensively on Liebknecht's proclamation, Scheidemann's speech is much less noticed.

Insecurity, fear and anger in the ranks of the population

How must these events have affected the contemporaries? The call for armistice negotiations in September 1918 made the German population suddenly aware that the actual situation at the front had been concealed from them. One can only imagine how shocking this news must have been. At that time, the German Reich has perceived itself for almost 50 years as a strong and proud state, built on the victories against France and Austria. Army leaders are regarded as heroes, the emperor as a sublime leader. Now, after four years of certainty of victory, the war is suddenly lost.

The disappointment among the population is enormous. If their own sons did not die for victory, what did they die for? By 1918, more than 13 million soldiers had gone to war for the German Reich, and two million had fallen. According to Sabine Kienitz, a historian, about 2.7 million men of all ages and from all walks of life came back from the war physically or mentally wounded.

The fallen son, injured husband or missing brother always reminds families of the war. Losses and wounds confront the relatives with the cruelty of the past years on a daily basis. The picture of the dead in the parlour and the many young men with prostheses and wound dressings on the streets keep the memory of the war additionally alive. The war is still very present.

Shortly before and after the end of the war, several organisations emerge to address the suffering of these men in different ways. The social democratic "Reichsbund der Kriegsbeschädigten" (Reich Association of War-Affected Persons) advocates that veterans and their families be treated free of charge by welfare doctors in case of illness. He also sets up a death fund. Three months after the death of a member, surviving dependants receive a death grant to cover funeral expenses.

The "The Steel Helmet. Union of Front Line Soldiers" takes a different approach. Calling members "war-disabled" would certainly not have occurred to the founders of the association. The name is intended to stand for honour and recognition of the military achievements of its members. The organisation argues for the primacy of the military over politics. She rejects the republic and the leadership role of civilians. Jewish veterans are denied admission. The organisation is military. One of the most important tasks is to maintain and strengthen the conscientiousness of the members; there is military drill like in the barracks. Despite these military features, the Union of Frontline Soldiers is a civilian institution. The "Stahlhelm" is organised like an interest group. It represents the interests of its members. What is unimaginable for us today is that such an association nevertheless also has military features. But the mixing of military and political structures in one and the same organisation was still possible in the Weimar Republic.

In November 1918, however, paramilitary, i.e. military-like troops such as the so-called Freikorps also emerged. These units are not subordinate to the Reichswehr, but are founded by senior officers and paid for by the governments. Unlike the Reichsbund and the Stahlhelm, the Freikorps operate as employers. About 400,000 soldiers find wages and bread in it. As a rule, the military pay corresponds to the wartime pay.

The Freikorps resist the political changes in 1918. Their presence in public space and their political significance cannot be underestimated. They counterbalance parliamentarism because they stand for the primacy of the military over civilian life. The Freikorps do not seek a continuation of the war, they consider themselves the protective power of the country and believe they alone can preserve peace and order in the state. The soldiers do not trust the executive, i.e. the police, the public prosecutor's office and the local courts. Their mistrust of civilian life is too great for that.

Ein legendärer Dolchstoß

The disappointment of defeat kept quiet, the difficult return of millions of returning soldiers to civilian life and the founding of Freikorps create a climate of uncertainty. Influential officers, such as the deposed OHL chief Erich Ludendorff (1865-1937), spread a legend with political explosive power in this situation: it was not the enemies who defeated the soldiers at the front - it was their own politicians who stabbed them in the back and thus prevented victory. To convey this version of the end of the war in a particularly impressive way, the officers claim that a group of Social Democrats, Republicans and Jews joined forces to stab the soldiers in the back. For soldiers, occupied enemy territory is a place to use to fall back and resupply. Therefore, the image of the dagger stabbing the soldier in the back from behind is understandable even to the ordinary infantryman.

With the tale of the backstabbing, a legend came into circulation as early as 1918 that was later taken up again by the National Socialists and used to delegitimise the Weimar Republic. In 1918 it can be so entangled because the defeat in the war is indeed inexplicable for many Germans. The bogus story of the backstabbing falls on fertile ground, as many people wondered how defeat could have befallen such a strong army so suddenly.

And it helps to channel the anger and disappointment in the face of the looming demands of the victorious powers. At the end of 1918, after the capitulation and proclamation of the Republic, the peace negotiations enter the decisive phase. Only now does the German public realise that the victorious powers want to enforce comprehensive reparation claims and territorial cessions against the German Reich. Not only was Germany to lose West Prussia in the east and Alsace-Lorraine in the west according to the plans of the victorious powers. The Rhineland is occupied by French, Belgian, British and US troops - a measure that prepares for the dismantling and removal of entire industrial plants. Outrageous sums are to be paid to the victors from the state budget, and the Reichswehr is also to be permanently weakened by limiting its manpower and armament.

War-disabled and war-ready face each other

Alfred Döblin prefaced his novel "November 1918" with a fitting quote by Georg Christoph Lichtenberg (1742-1799): "To build a republic from the materials of a torn-down monarchy is admittedly a difficult problem. It can't be done without first hewing each stone differently, and that takes time." Lichtenberg, writer and physicist, was not a contemporary. He lived in the time of the French Revolution. And yet his quote hits a central point. From today's perspective, the republic appears to be a matter of course, but at the time the new state system also triggered scepticism and many doubts among the general population. At the same time, there is a conviction in parts of the working class and the liberal bourgeoisie that there could be no going back to the old political order after the horrors of the war, that the empire and the monarchy were obsolete, and that a new polity had to be built according to democratic principles. Within a short period of time, people have to cope with profound changes.

Now civilians take over the leadership, who could lose their position again at the next election. For their mandate was dependent on the results in the Reichstag elections. But the imperial president had the right to bypass the parliamentary legislative process by issuing decrees as princes once did. The instrument of so-called emergency decrees was only to be used when the security of citizens was acutely threatened. But the Reich presidents and Reich chancellors were subsequently to issue emergency decrees even if the procurement of a majority in parliament was unsuccessful.

The reactions to the founding of the republic are correspondingly disparate. Social democracy experiences an upswing, the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) formed the strongest parliamentary group in the Reichstag in the first years of the Republic. The newly founded social-liberal German Democratic Party (DDP) welcomes the Republic. No other party supports the parliamentary system like this one. For the representatives of communism, too, the Weimar Imperial Constitution brings unimagined possibilities. In 1918 they are able to found their own party, the Communist Party of Germany (KPD).

But the parliament and its key players were threatened from the beginning. As in other states in Europe, opponents of the constitution in Germany are taking armed action against its most important actors. Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht are among the first victims of violence. They are murdered by members of the Freikorps in 1919. In the same year, the Bavarian Prime Minister Kurt Eisner (1867-1919) was assassinated, two years later Reich Finance Minister Mathias Erzberger (1875-1921) and 1922 the Reich Foreign Minister Walther Rathenau (1867-1922).

Unlike after the founding of the Federal Republic in 1949, the resistance to the young Weimar Republic is so violent and formidable that the new state system has no time to grow and develop in peace. Indicative of the reactions to the Republic is Thomas Mann's (1875-1955) speech from 1922. The writer speaks out in favour of the Republic in front of students. He is often interrupted by boos, because his audience is extremely critical of the new state. Thomas Mann was originally a harsh critic of parliamentarism himself, as he considered democracy incompatible with the German spirit. Only the countless murders made him rethink. Now he is defending the republic, but he did so mainly in the hope that the killing would finally stop. He concludes his speech with the cry "Long live the republic!" - and then faces incredibly sharp criticism.

Women on the parliamentary stage for the first time

From today's perspective, 1918 is associated with yet another caesura: The government introduces universal, free and equal suffrage. For the first time, women also enter the parliamentary stage and can make use of their right to vote. However, some of them were politically active long before that. Rosa Luxemburg (1871-1919), for example, had already fought several election campaigns for the SPD before the war, albeit for male candidates. During the war, she called on workers to withdraw support for the war. Without the protection of a political mandate, this earned her a prison sentence for lese majeste.

Since 1918, women have been able to vote and be elected. For a long time, historians considered it certain that women had earned the right to vote through their heroic efforts during the war. In the meantime, it has been proven that the war did not accelerate the introduction of women's suffrage, but delayed it. The writer Hedwig Dohm had already demanded in an essay in 1873 that women should have a say in those laws that affected them. Of course, women's suffrage also serves those in power, because it puts their power on a broader basis.

Citizens also reacted very differently to women's suffrage. On the side of the supporters were many female politicians and intellectuals who had fought for this right. One of the first MPs in German history, Marie Juchacz from Berlin, said in a speech in the Reichstag in 1919 about the introduction of women's suffrage: 
"I would like to state here (...) that we German women do not owe our thanks to this government in the traditional sense. What this government did was a matter of course: it gave women what they had been unjustly deprived of until then" (Liebig & Übel 2020, 21).

But even the Berlin psychologist and vehement advocate of women's suffrage, Hildegard Sachs, in a commentary with the ironic title "Gretchen mit dem Stimmzettel" (Gretchen with the ballot paper) in 1924, gives consideration:

"Women, for reasons arising from tradition, need even more than men the awakening of political interest and thus the strengthening of their political judgement and the consciousness of their political responsibility." (Vossische Newspaper from 19 June 1924)

It took decades before women's right to vote and to stand for election were taken for granted by both men and women themselves. The basis for this was created in the Weimar Republic.

The year 1918 marked a deep break in the lives of contemporaries: The war was lost, the Emperor abdicated. The monarchy was replaced by the young Republic of Weimar with a president directly elected by the people. The military lost its exposed position. Politicians now determined the fate of the country and also supervised the troops. The parties entered into a competition for the best ideas for the weakened country. Parliamentarism took hold - and had a hard time from the start. For the forces critical of the new system were numerous and influential. From the very beginning, democratic structures were in competition with the violent tendencies of right-wing nationalist forces.

Literature

Döblin, Alfred, November 1918. Eine deutsche Revolution. Erzählwerk in drei Teilen. T 1, Frankfurt am Main 2013

Goltermann, Svenja, Opfer. Die Wahrnehmung von Krieg und Gewalt in der Moderne, Frankfurt/Main 2017

Kaiser, Alexandra, Von Helden und Opfern. Eine Geschichte des Volkstrauertags, Frankfurt/Main 2010

Kienitz, Sabine, Beschädigte Helden. Kriegsinvalidität und Körperbilder 1914-1923, Paderborn (u.a.) 2008

Sabine Liebig, Brigitte Übel, 19. Januar 1919: Frauenwahlrecht. Ein Meilenstein zur Gleichberechtigung, Stuttgart 2020

Müller, Nikola, Ein langer, steiniger Weg: Der Kampf um das Frauenwahlrecht, in: Blätter für deutsche und internationale Politik Januar 2018

Richter, Hedwig, Wolff, Kerstin (Hrsg.), Frauenwahlrecht. Demokratisierung der Demokratie in Deutschland und Europa. Hamburg, Hamburger Edition 2018

Weinrich, Arndt, Der Weltkrieg als Erzieher. Jugend zwischen Weimarer Republik und Nationalsozialismus, Essen 2013